ACLU Comment on U.S. Supreme Court Action in Ohio Partisan Gerrymandering Case
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today instructed the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider a previous ruling that required Ohio’s congressional map be redrawn over unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
Following its routine practice when cases it decides overlap with cases before it on a petition for certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court “granted, vacated, and remanded,” asking the state court to consider its decision in light of the high court’s recent ruling in Moore v. Harper, which rejected the “independent state legislature” theory.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, and Covington & Burling LLP had successfully challenged Ohio’s congressional plan, arguing it unduly favored the Republican Party, in violation of the Ohio Constitution.
Acting on the authority granted under the Ohio Constitution, the state court agreed and invalidated the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The state court then directed the state Legislature to draw a new compliant map. Instead of doing so, Ohio asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, relying on the fringe legal proposition rejected in Moore v. Harper.
The following reactions are from:
Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Moore v. Harper makes clear that state constitutions and state courts have a significant role in checking the acts of state legislatures with respect to redistricting. Given the Ohio Constitution’s explicit prohibition on extreme partisan gerrymandering, there is no question the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decision was within its authority.”
Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio: “If the Ohio Supreme Court does faithfully apply Moore, as instructed by SCOTUS, there is no question: it should reaffirm its previous decision. What SCOTUS said in Moore was that legislatures must follow their state constitutions — consistent with what the Ohio Supreme Court already decided.”
Order list:
This case, Huffman v. Neiman, is part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
Voting Rights
Huffman v. Neiman
Voting Rights
Huffman v. Neiman
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”